QUILLIAN, Justice.
This is a suit brought by the seller of real estate to compel the purchaser to specifically perform the contract of sale. The contract contained the provision: "Purchaser to pay $5,500 down and secure a loan for $10,000 balance. This sale is subject to purchaser's ability to obtain this loan." The petition alleged the purchaser could obtain the loan of $10,000 but refused to accept the loan or carry out the contract.
The contract is too indefinite to be the subject of a decree for specific performance for the reason that it does not stipulate upon what terms and at what rate of interest the defendant is to obtain the loan of $10,000. Erwin v. Hardin, 187 Ga. 275 ( 200 S.E. 159); Wehunt v. Pritchett, 208 Ga. 441, 444 ( 67 S.E.2d 233); Healan v. Healan, 209 Ga. 268 ( 71 S.E.2d 537); F C Investment Co. v. Jones, 210 Ga. 635 ( 81 S.E.2d 828); Williams v. Manchester Bldg. Supply Co., 213 Ga. 99, 101 ( 97 S.E.2d 129); Duvall v. Cox, 215 Ga. 163, 164 ( 109 S.E.2d 593). See, as to the necessity of completeness of a contract to be enforced in a suit for breach of same, Williams v. Gottlieb, 90 Ga. App. 438 (1) ( 83 S.E.2d 245), and Scarborough v. Novak, 92 Ga. App. 488 ( 88 S.E.2d 800). Hence, it must be held that the trial judge erred in overruling the general demurrer to the petition.
Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur.
ARGUED JUNE 12, 1962 — DECIDED JULY 9, 1962.